Oct 4, 2012 11:30pm EDT
is paper because we don't have the laws that require us to check. >> rose: so you have to have paper as a starting point. >> you have to have paper and the right laws you have to do post election ballot audits otherwise you won't know that the results that it is computer reports are actually correct. >> rose: so your commission is to change. >> yes. >> >> rose: and what are the chances you will be able to do this? >> well, one of the reasons -- the main reason we wrote the book is to get the message out, we want people to know and americans to know a great democracy deserves a great voting system and right now, we have a third rate voting system which is just not worthy of our democracy, we are also very concerned that if there is a very close election or multiple close races in upcoming election and it seems likely will will be that if people don't trust the outcome, that is really bad for our democracy. it is unhealthy and creates. >> rose: it erode trust and confidence. >> it erodes trust it means whoever is the winner or declared winner will not have the support of a large pearjt
Oct 2, 2012 11:00pm EDT
pressed and the full force of the law obviously needs to play on that. the bigger issue about how a democracy fashion as proper conversation in fragmented societies is something that i think is very, very profound. but if you think about it, the gridlock you complain about, we can't get agreement in our country about building a third runway in heathrow airport, much less care about the elderly swrenchts the same problem. >> there is gridlock on syria, there is grid lock on the saving of the eu, there is gridlock at the national politics, and representative politics is facing a very, very buying set of charges, people feel they are not getting a proper say. now, there are reforms in every country that are going to have to be particular to that country, but there is a more generic issue about how in a world of multiaccess to information we have a proper conversation about how to take our countries forward. >> it is good to see you. >> very nice to see you. >> david miliband, former foreign minister and now a member of parliament in great britain. thank you for joining us. see you ne
Oct 1, 2012 11:00pm EDT
as a humanitarian disaster in syria. and it is clearly a violation of international law. but i think seen from a strategic point of view both russia and china should have a self-interest in being so to speak on the right side of history. and i think that could be an argument for them in favor of delivering a clear and unified and strong message from the international community. >> rose: do you think it's a stalemate today? >> more or less it is a stalemate. with severe consequences for the people of syria. and i think the international community has a responsibility to deliver a very clear message to the assad regime that they must stop violence and initiate a process towards democracy in syria. no regime can in the long-term neglect the will of the people. >> rose: when you look at the balkans, we had an intervention without a u.n. resolution. nato acted without a u.n. resolution. can you imagine that happening in syria? >> testimony brief answer is no, but let me stress that nato acted on the basic of the principles of the u.n. charter when we took responsibility for the operation in kosovo.